Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 431

Declaration of NATHAN GREENBLATT in Support of 430 MOTION for Summary Judgment OF INDEFINITENESS OF CLAIMS 24, 26 AND 30 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,825,352 filed byApple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 430 ) (Greenblatt, Nathan) (Filed on 9/14/2011)

Exhibit H

Page 1
1

ROBERT DEZMELYK

2

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

3

WASHINGTON, D.C.

4

INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-714

5

IN THE MATTER OF:

6

CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH

7

MULTI-TOUCH ENABLED TOUCHPADS

8

AND TOUCHSCREENS

9

/

10

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT DEZMELYK

11

WASHINGTON, D.C.

12

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

PAGES 1 - 206

24

JOB NO. 32753

25

REPORTED BY:

Kathy Savich, RPR, CLR

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 2
1

ROBERT DEZMELYK

2

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

3

9:10 a.m.

4
5
6

Deposition of ROBERT DEZMELYK,
held at the offices of:

7
8

Weil Gotshal & Manges

9

1300 Eye Street, NW

10

Suite 900

11

Washington, D.C.

12
13

Pursuant to notice of taking

14

deposition, held before Kathy Savich,

15

Notary Public In and for the District

16

of Columbia.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 3
1
2

ROBERT DEZMELYK
APPEARANCES:

3
4

COUNSEL FOR APPLE:

5

WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

6

BY:

7

201 Redwood Shores Parkway

8

Redwood Shores, California

9

650-802-3118

10

SONAL N. MEHTA, ESQUIRE

94065

[e-mail]

11
12

COUNSEL FOR Elan Microelectronics:

13

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

14

BY:

15

275 Middlefield Road

16

Menlo Park, California

17

650-838-2020

18

[e-mail]

YITAI HU, ESQUIRE

94025

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 4
1
2

ROBERT DEZMELYK
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

3
4

COUNSEL FOR ITC:

5

BY:

6

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

7

500 E Street S.W.

8

Washington, D.C.

9

202-205-2221

10
11

KEVIN BAER, ESQUIRE

20436

[e-mail]
ALSO PRESENT:

CONWAY BARKER, VIDEOGRAPHER

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 174
1

ROBERT DEZMELYK

2

claims totally differently.

Maybe your --

3

the structure you're looking for is -- is a

4

different -- I am not sure why I -- you

5

know --

6

BY MS. MEHTA:

7

Q.

Le me ask it --

8

A.

-- what -- what the point is

9
10

you're trying to get at.
Q.

11

Let me ask it a different way.
Is there any disclosure that

12

you're aware of in the '352 patent that

13

provides a click function based on removal

14

and reappearance where the algorithm defines

15

time as a factor or input into deciding

16

whether there has been a click function?

17

A.

Okay.

The algorithm always has

18

time and generates reports in a time basis.

19

I think you're asking, in interpreting the

20

claim, to mean is it like a time-based tap

21

function, right, that is where you

22

independently measure the time, and then you

23

delay your reporting to say, oh, I didn't get

24

a button down or I didn't get a button up

25

based on some -- because that's -- that's

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 175
1
2
3
4

ROBERT DEZMELYK
what you're describing.
Q.

No.

What I mean -- let me -- I

think that's not what I am describing.

5

What I am describing is, is

6

there any algorithm that considers whether

7

removal and replacement of the maxima happens

8

at a predetermined time as a factor in

9

deciding whether to provide a click function?

10
11

MR. HU:

Objection.

The

question is vague.

12

THE WITNESS:

No.

But -- there

13

is an important but -- of course, the

14

practitioners would know how to do

15

that.

16

disclosure -- and, again, I'm -- this

17

is -- now, I am not -- now I'm talking

18

about a claim I have not been asked to

19

testify about but -- okay, so I

20

haven't done any prep on it or

21

anything for a long time, but the --

22

there is prior disclosure -- there is

23

sufficient knowledge in the prior art

24

that the practitioners of this

25

certainly know how to do time-based

So there is probably enough

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 176
1

ROBERT DEZMELYK

2

generation of events because that's

3

part of the prior art.

4

BY MS. MEHTA:

5

Q.

And you offered an opinion on

6

that in your declaration two weeks ago,

7

correct, on that term?

8

A.

Probably.

9

Q.

August 3rd, 2010, CX-25, last

A.

What I see here is completely

10
11

page.

12

consistent with what I have said today.

13

you have a question about it?

14

Q.

No.

Do

I just asked whether you

15

had offered an opinion on that term in your

16

declaration two weeks ago.

17

A.

Right.

But -- but it's on the

18

means -- it's not the term.

I would make --

19

let's make it clear.

20

declaration from, I believe, the rebuttal

21

declaration that you were talking about the

22

same declaration from -- you're saying from

23

-- which one?

The one from the 3rd or from

24

two weeks ago?

This is -- two weeks ago is

25

not quite -- yeah, it's almost two weeks ago,

It's on the -- this

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Page 205
l

ROBERT DEZMELYK

2

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Kathy Savich, the undersigned

3

4

RPR, CLR, and Notary Public in and for

5

the District of Columbia, do hereby

6

certify that the above-named witness,

7

after having been first duly sworn to

8

testify to the truth, did testify as

9

set forth in the foregoing pages, that

lO

the testimony was reported by me in

II

stenotype and transcribed under my

l2

personal direction and supervision,

l3

and is a true and correct transcript.
I further certify that I am not

l4

l5

of counsel, not related to counselor

l6

the parties hereto, and not in any way

l7

interested in the outcome of this

l8

matter.

19

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO under my
hand this l7th day of August, 20l0.

20
2l
22
23
24

My Commission Expires:

l/l/20l2

KathYS~

Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia

25

TSG Reporting 877-702-9580